Originally Posted by hummingbear (Post 3693238)

Ah yes, the old “gotta see it from the company’s perspective”. A classic in one-sided negotiations. They would have paid for captains, but we told them they didn’t have to.

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 3693267)

Ah yes, the old, 'I'm voting yes, but I'm going to scream about how terrible this contract is' thread.

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
While I applaud the enthusiasm over this one issue, it's already been beaten to death, drug to the glue factory, repackaged as Elmer's glue, and is currently for sale in individual containers on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-Liquid...1zcF9hdGY&th=1

Originally Posted by Flyweight (Post 3693275)

so they can have worse new hire work rules?

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 3693267)

Ah yes, the old, 'I'm voting yes, but I'm going to scream about how terrible this contract is' thread.

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
While I applaud the enthusiasm over this one issue, it's already been beaten to death, drug to the glue factory, repackaged as Elmer's glue, and is currently for sale in individual containers on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-Liquid...1zcF9hdGY&th=1

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 3693267)

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.

Originally Posted by 744ButtonPusher (Post 3693309)

then make it optional .. not a forced upgrade

Originally Posted by Otterbox (Post 3693436)

It already is optional and the reserve rules suck so bad they’re getting 100+ unfilled Captain slots per vacancy and the TA doesn’t over much real improvements to make. 5+ years of reserve appealing.

Originally Posted by hummingbear (Post 3693112)

I’ve argued the safety issue of forced upgrades (which to me is the greater concern), but I think those who are brushing that element aside are also overlooking what a terrible negotiating decision it is. The company has always had free rein to do with NH FOs as they please, but their need to fill CA positions in parity has often worked to our advantage. For example: consider the large growth we’ve seen in mid continent hubs over the past couple of years. This has come largely because, although the company could send all the NH FOs to SFO & EWR, they couldn’t fill the CA seats. This forced them to build more flying out of places like DEN & IAH where more of our pilots want to live. (Heck, we actually got a FL base- which we’ve been whining about for decades- purely because the company couldn’t staff EWR voluntarily.) While ALPA has been encouraging the company to do this for a long time, the company has been reluctant to do it because it costs more $$$. Finally, they realized they had to pay what it cost because they had no alternative. I.e., send flying where the pilots want to be or have no captains to do the flying.

Now they have a much cheaper & more efficient alternative- send as many NH FOs & CAs as they want to the undesired hubs. Pilot desirability now has no impact on how & where they build flying.

In essence, we’re creating a new subset of the pilot group-prospective crews- that will do the work we don’t want to do for cheaper. Today, if none of us wants to sit RSV in SFO, there is pressure on the company to improve RSV rules or commuting benefits; or build more flying where our pilots live. Tomorrow their solution will just be to send full NH crews there.

This will give the company a massive advantage in all forward negotiations. Any time we put pressure on them that the pilots want X, they will know that there’s a crew out there willing to go without X just to get on property. (That has always been true of FOs, but once it is also true of captains, the company’s incentive to appeal to our requests will drop to zero.) Want RSV improvements? Nah, we’ll just get NHs to sit RSV. Commuter benefits? Not when we can just send NHs to the undesirable hubs. Restrictions on reassignments? You guessed it. The incentive to open- & maintain bases like MCO completely dries up when the company can simply staff EWR with NHs. Today we’re negotiating against the company. Next cycle we’ll be negotiating against every pilot on the street who wants to come to UAL.

I gotta hand it to Kirby- he’s been playing chess against our checkers this whole time. Delay, delay, delay. Stash $$$ in a mattress while he wears us down; then once he has a big enough retro check to wave under our noses, ask for forced upgrades & sign quickly. (Isn’t it interesting how the one thing in this contract that is a major concession is the very thing that was absent from all polling & negotiations updates?)

Right now we feel like we’re getting a lot of what we asked for, but I think the time will come when we realize what we gave up to get it.